And yet the whataboutism (an old and tired rhetorical tactic) actually attempts to equate the situation for freedom of the press, civil rights, human rights and a functioning democratic/republic form of government in the USA and Russia. They are in no way equal to each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Russia

How can you bemoan whataboutism when your entire argument was an ad hominem attack? Even though Russia's track record on liberal values is worse than America's, RT can print truthful things.

by definition, an ad hominem attack is on the character or morals of a single individual. RT/Sputnik are large state run corporations.

The term "ad hominem" had changed beyond it's literal Latin translation, but I guess I can swap it to "your entire argument was an association fallacy."

That would require the GPs comment to be false. RT and Sputnik are Russian government propaganda pieces. Anyone who denies that either lies to themselves or to others.

CNN and NYT may write/send things you don't like, but they are free from government interference.

(Also, the quality of CNN and NYT is far higher, but that's a different point)

>That would require the GPs comment to be false

Their argument was an association fallacy regardless of the truth of the stated position. I mentioned Russia's poor record with liberal values, but that doesn't mean RT reporting this story means the topic isn't worth considering.

It has? Who says it has? As far as I'm concerned, it hasn't.

These constant attempts to redefine the meanings of accepted and well-understood words are annoying as all hell. Stop trying to fuck up language all the time, damn kids. If you need a word for some specific meaning of your own, then make up your own damn word. (And now get off my lawn!)